What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Red states are being supported by the Blue states

Chris

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
23,154
Reaction score
1,967
Points
205
We hear it all the time: Red states are for limited government; blue states are for heavy spending. While this may be true when it comes to broad political preferences, itÂ’s false as measured by patterns of federal spending.

When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states. Only one red state (Texas) is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. One blue state (Rhode Island) pays as much as it gets.

Political scientists have been wrestling with this apparent paradox for years. One explanation sometimes offered is that the red states, on average, have smaller populations. In “Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level,” published by the journal Public Choice in 2005, two University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa economists, Gary Hoover and Paul Pecorino, note that residents of low-population states have more per capita representation in Congress, since every state, regardless of population, has two senators. That edge, Hoover and Pecorino argue, translates into more federal handouts. The results are conspicuous in the case of homeland security grants, where small, rural, relatively low-risk states get much more money per capita than urban states that face bigger terrorist threats.

But red-state lawmakersÂ’ ability to bring home the bacon isnÂ’t the main reason for the paradox. Red states, on average, are also lower-income states. Because of the progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes. These payments are unlikely to be matched by federal spending directed back into those states.

This transfer of tax dollars from the states to the federal government is net of tax deductions, including deductions for state taxes ($50 billion in fiscal year 2012) and mortgage interest ($100 billion). As the former U.S. Treasury economist Martin Sullivan showed in the March issue of Tax Notes, the mortgage interest deduction overwhelmingly benefits high-income states. If it werenÂ’t for that deduction, blue states would be even bigger net payers than they are today.

Why Do Red States Want Limited Gov. Spending, then Take More?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
88,601
Reaction score
74,554
Points
3,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Here we go again.

Let's take a look as the "red states" out west, and who owns the lion's share of the land in them:

map-owns_the_west.jpg


Now, do you think that controlling and administering all of that land comes without a price tag?

On top of that, how many military installations operate in those states?


Of course, this has already been explained to you numerous times, so your lame-assed rehashing of this issue is just more of your brain dead regurgitation of debunked liberoidal whackjob blabbering points.

69748-gay_fire_extinguish.jpg
 
Last edited:

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
161,721
Reaction score
42,848
Points
2,180
Here's a simple solution, Chris: abolish all those welfare programs you despise so much.


We hear it all the time: Red states are for limited government; blue states are for heavy spending. While this may be true when it comes to broad political preferences, itÂ’s false as measured by patterns of federal spending.

When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states. Only one red state (Texas) is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. One blue state (Rhode Island) pays as much as it gets.

Political scientists have been wrestling with this apparent paradox for years. One explanation sometimes offered is that the red states, on average, have smaller populations. In “Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level,” published by the journal Public Choice in 2005, two University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa economists, Gary Hoover and Paul Pecorino, note that residents of low-population states have more per capita representation in Congress, since every state, regardless of population, has two senators. That edge, Hoover and Pecorino argue, translates into more federal handouts. The results are conspicuous in the case of homeland security grants, where small, rural, relatively low-risk states get much more money per capita than urban states that face bigger terrorist threats.

But red-state lawmakersÂ’ ability to bring home the bacon isnÂ’t the main reason for the paradox. Red states, on average, are also lower-income states. Because of the progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes. These payments are unlikely to be matched by federal spending directed back into those states.

This transfer of tax dollars from the states to the federal government is net of tax deductions, including deductions for state taxes ($50 billion in fiscal year 2012) and mortgage interest ($100 billion). As the former U.S. Treasury economist Martin Sullivan showed in the March issue of Tax Notes, the mortgage interest deduction overwhelmingly benefits high-income states. If it werenÂ’t for that deduction, blue states would be even bigger net payers than they are today.

Why Do Red States Want Limited Gov. Spending, then Take More?
 

Missourian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
28,791
Reaction score
18,408
Points
1,405
Location
Missouri
I have two words for you Chris.




Notice all the blue states at the top, and all the red states at the bottom?

Roads and bridges need to be built from all those red states to all those blue state, so the people the living on top of each other in blue states don't starve to death.

Look at the state of Rhode Island, which is 3rd on the list in population density, and like 1200 square miles total with a population of a million people and a population density of 1000 people per square mile. How many federal roads and bridges can you build in a state that's 48 miles long by 37 miles wide?

Now look at the red state of Wyoming, 49 out of 50 on the population density list with a population density of...wait for it...6 people per square mile.

Wyoming is 280 miles wide and 360 miles long with an area of almost 100,000 miles and a total population (read tax base) of 563,626. Lots of roads and bridges have to be built to get that beef to NYC.

So to recap...Rhode Island...1,000 people per square mile, 1,200 square miles.

Wyoming...6 people per square mile, 100,000 square miles.

Does that put it into perspective for ya?

Not a Red state/Blue state issue...no matter how much you would like it to be...a population density issue.

And this goes hand in glove with Oddball's excellent post.

The U.S. Government owns 48% of Wyoming.

Links for population, size, area, population density and government ownership:

 
Last edited:

Liberty

Silver Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
4,058
Reaction score
549
Points
98
Location
colorado
chris needs to just...go away. perhaps somewhere like UCLA, explore his bisexuality, get a job at bed bath and beyond, and just...stop trying to act smart.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
94
Points
48
Its about time the blue States secede imho, those dern red States ruin everything for them.

:clap2:
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top